Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55605 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2008 16:56:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2008 16:56:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16603 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2008 16:56:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 16374 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2008 16:56:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 16363 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2008 16:56:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:56:34 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.187 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.170.187] (HELO rn-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.170.187) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:55:47 +0000 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e21so378550rng.6 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:56:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=vGgsBNrMnFs1eGi2fL2vT/ToUE3qcnEfpbt+jhYYL2M=; b=sU6UX2N/a9iQM4lq6k3VcCi3QbsCF4BZUEn1N6DFAhOHRnFZfFPpCdEDJ4YKbffXQi9b+rFNC7lpaCdjOmRlP+eRygGLWsdDeyk2R0N0nZter+A5sEyQ1hU1rzhAvOEom54cCdhOhTuAc6SwtaQpDs+pwQAeoioAsA+/4nOAf6Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=S2EqD/9aUovruZWUMNoHx1ONuEkET8/V04gRl0Is/NiAVikMhFcp9Gp1nrio117pXHIK2gygTFrPQYvqtdrqgJb7paRkhjqvvfJXAy5PPmZ+bvd+gJXJfdwyhj7ECPu0/xpFeK3jSJFnupVTfhRIIljYFtaX6UHTvZj+vEknofM= Received: by 10.114.195.19 with SMTP id s19mr4829761waf.58.1204736167008; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.241.19 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:56:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3d4032300803050856p24d8b714wfca54e48983f2bdb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:56:06 -0500 From: "Sam Ruby" Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com To: "Joe Schaefer" Subject: Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?) Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org In-Reply-To: <953142.47221.qm@web54409.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d4032300803050757p2de06ea1r6937830fccb8ca47@mail.gmail.com> <953142.47221.qm@web54409.mail.yahoo.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 143fac96cef8d680 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > --- Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Joe Schaefer > > wrote: > > > > > > > I will repeat my statement that a license > > > is not the arbiter of what is or is not a > > > derivative > > > work. The question to me is whether or not > > > writing > > > some glue code to interface with some 3rd party > > > GPL'd code qualifies as fair use, and is > > > therefore > > > not considered by the courts as a derivative > > > work. > > > > > > I believe this is in fact the case, but would > > > appreciate it if someone skilled in these matters > > > would offer an opinion here. > > [...] > > > > Sometimes our downloads do not include code from > > third parties. That > > may free us from obligation, but it is important to > > realize that it is > > our intention to enable licensees of our code (this > > would be the > > "second" parties involved in this third party > > discussion) to do with > > as they please -- limited only by the the terms and > > conditions > > specified in our license. > > So there are two issues as far as copyright goes then, > > 1) what is the licensing on the tarball we distribute, > 2) what is the licensing on the executable that the > user (ie second party) actually runs? Yes for 1. On #2, it is important to realize that our licensees may not actually run the code themselves, but may sublicense our code for distribution to fourth parties. > For dependencies on optional works that we do not > distribute, I don't think the ASF should be in the > businesss of policing what a user selects for > his/her preferred runtime. The current policy > does try to say that somewhere, but then seems > to back-peddle when discussing GPL stuff. Agreed. But it is worth noting that the term "optional" is harder to pin down than you might think. A hadoop startup script is hardly optional, but is readily replaced. Everything we produce is "soft" ware, so a developer with enough motivation could replace *any* dependency that we might create. ServiceMix providing a plugin for JBoss clearly is OK. Where you draw the line, how you draw the line, and who gets to draw the line: these are questions where reasonable people differ. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See for official ASF policies and documents. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org